Arguable link
In this Wiki we classify fictional link types in the most objective way possible, but sometimes it's impossible to come to a definitive conclusion about a link. The only objective way to treat them is to note the objectively subjective nature of such links: :An "Arguable link" is a remarkably weak interaction between two series that barely manages to match the definition of In-universe link, but it could be argued that it doesn't match it. The conditions that an interaction needs to match to be a Type 1 or In-universe link are basically that elements from a series must be real to the other and that it must be an officially authorized interaction. The "arguable link" definition is applied both to links that it might be argued are a weaker type than type 1, as well as to interactions that it might be argued are not fictional links at all. When such cases present themselves they are indeed classified as Type 1 links in this Wiki, but they receive an "Arguable link" label, informing readers that it's equally respectable to not consider them type 1 if they chose not to. Such a rule is only defined for Type 1 links, because that's the only very strict link between two series. For an interaction to be a Type 2 link there's no need of official authorization, and basically anything could be a Type 3 link, so there's no point in noting when an already shady type of link is particularly arguable. Note that every link has a degree of arguability, this doesn't mean that every opposing opinion is enough to mark a link as "arguable". Most times the set of rules we defined are enough to come to a definite conclusion about interactions, so this label is reserved to very special cases that can't be decided even after discussion, and to sets of well defined weak interactions between series that we included in the following examples. Basically while we acknowledge that classifying everything as either black or white is not totally correct, the range of shades that can be called "grey" must be well defined. Examples of arguable links Here are examples of interactions that are considered "Arguable links". *Weaker applications of the cover rule: characters meeting in an illustration only count as a fictional type 1 link if the illustration has narrative value. The presence of such value can sometimes be arguable, and those cases are considered arguable links. This usually means cases where characters are performing a basic activity. *S-Flag and similar items: an element appearing in another series only creates an in-universe link if it's real, but the definition of "real" is arguable when we're talking about inanimate objects. If a character appears as an inanimate object that surely doesn't count as real, but what about an inanimate object appearing as an inanimate object? Usually we only count them if the object has some special properties, but it's arguable, and we respect the opinion of people chosing not to consider these items to create an actual link. *Costumes with special features: a character wearing a costume from another series usually counts as a sub-universe link, since it's considered just akin to a cosplay; only cases of costumes with special features like a functioning weapon or an armor offering specific protection are considered type 1 links. This is often arguable however since even the weapon or armor might just be a reproduction, not implying the referenced series to be real, and in some cases they are simple "reskins" changing the appearance of an already functioning weapon to one from a different series. *Mascot link: to this Wiki a mascot character is one that doesn't belong to any series, so its appearance is usually not notable, however a mascot appearing in at least two series creates a link between them. This is arguable, since not belonging to a series usually means that a mascot doesn't have a background and could just be considered something similar to a pop icon, and one might chose not to consider this link, just like we don't consider public domain characters, or characters from folklore. *Card game or similar: characters from different series appearing together in a card game count as an in-universe link since they are supposed to exist together in the same fictional universe, but if the characters are depicted on different cards a valid objection is that no real interaction between the two series is ever shown. For this reason links produced through card games are considered arguable links. This is extended to similar cases like videogames where characters are represented as cards or static images, like Puzzle & Dragons, or Spirits in Super Smash Bros. *Commercial link: characters appearing together in a commercial count as a type 1 link because they interact showing that elements from one series are real to the other. It may be argued however that a commercial serves primarily a promotional purpose, rather than a narrative one, and the interaction doesn't count, similar to an interaction that happens during Fourth wall breaking. *Cases where the license is not explicitly mentioned: for a link to be considered type 1 it must be official, but sometimes the officiality can't be objectively identified. Some examples include: **Captain N: the show features characters from various NES games, including both Nintendo characters as well as ones from other companies. The show's credits however only include a Nintendo copyright with the mention "This program utilizes characters created by Nintendo", which is not accurate nor comprehensive. While Nintendo characters appearing definitely count as type 1 links, characters from other series are "arguable links": while it sounds very unlikely that they would include characters without authorization, it's possible that the creators only asked Nintendo of America to include characters, and the authorization was automatically extended to licensed series without explicit permission from Konami, Capcom, Enix, Toei, Square and others, which is objectively of arguable legitimacy. **Club Nintendo comics: a case similar to Captain N, the German Club Nintendo magazine included comics based on Nintendo games, mostly Mario, and often featured interactions with non-Nintendo characters, but without any explicit authorization from each series' owner. In this case the owners of one of the featured characters, Plok, confirmed that they never gave authorization to include Plok in a Mario comic, so it's assumed the magazine just wrote comics based on any character from games on Nintendo consoles, which again is objectively of arguable legitimacy. **Acknowledgement of unauthorized works: it might happen that owners of a series acknowledge and therefore legitimize in a way the unauthorized appearance of elements from their series in a different series. Such an example are the Pickford Bros. acknowledging the aforementioned Plok appearance in the Mario comic in their own comic. This can be considered like a retroactive authorization, but the Pickford Bros. were actually never authorized to include a scene from the German comic in their own, so it might be argued that it's just a second non-link. Category:Crossover rules